Although I agree Lance Armstrong is a serial drug cheat, it has to be acknowledged that there is very little chance that any other racing team in the world at the moment does not have them. The cycling industry should have a good, hard look at itself or risk being erased as a legitimate world sport.

IN addition to the "cheating does pay" comment, which is fully and unfortunately a lesson here, there is one question.

Lance Armstrong, a bully and hypocrite forced into a confession only through overwhelming evidence, says that he is a 'competitor, and wants to compete again'.

As a competitor, there is no reasonable manner that I could line up against Armstrong and think that he is playing fair. Based on his character, it is highly improbable.

As a casual player of sports, I have never considered those who systematically cheat the system as sportman, even if they happen to partake in competitions. If someone defrauded the game, or cheated, then there was no real competition.

I believe Lance wants to be celebrated again, and win again, but I don't think he wants to be a sportsman and compete.

I too was offended at Lance Armstrong threatening his teammates. However, with the steroid issue itself, does environment influence a persons character? How many cyclists used performance enhancing drugs? Who was the saint who refused them?

What the whole Lance Armstrong debacle demonstrates is that cheating does pay.

Yes, ultimately, he was caught. And yes, he will be sued up the wazoo. But almost every legal analyst agrees - in the end, he will still be left a millionaire.

Fact is - if he hadn't cheated, he would now be your average middle-income American. Even after being caught, and being sued by anyone and everyone, he'll still be left leaps and bounds better off had he been a non-cheating, honest competitor in the first place.

Remove all restrictions to PEDs in sport (for adults, not kids). Let participants do whatever they feel they need to do to gain an edge. Cynical, you say? No more cynical than maintaining the facade of "amateur" college football or basketball. It will also eliminate the escalating cat and mouse game of designer drug vs. chemical Sherlock.

I love sport but for what it is--entertainment. I dismiss all records and never have really cared how far, how many, or how much. The "role model" argument? Really? If you are raising your children to revere athletes as role models, you had better reassess. How about teachers, social workers, or doctors being role models? Much more satisfying.

I disagree. Where are children's parents? And as I said, I do not support use of PEDs for children, only when they are adults and are able to make a number of other important decisions for themselves--like smoking.

Have more conversations with your kids and discuss with them horrible health effects of PEDs, but don't pretend that we can really do anything to stop their use. The real issue that is PEDs will follow the enormous amounts of money in sport. That is the root of the issue. To deny this is to deny human nature.

I really don't understand. A few weeks/months/years ago Lance Armstrong was a god to the U.S. and all the claims against him concerning use of PED was derided by American media as the expression of jealousy from the European media and public.

Now he has become the Antichrist. And everyone seems ready to burn him at the stake.

All professional sports from track and field to soccer, baseball, hockey, basketball, cycling etc. are rife with various levels of dopping.

It is completely fine, if Armstrong had used the power of a new technology and material to have a ligher and faster bike, with some new revolutionary tires that repaired themselves after a puncture. It is completely wrong if he used new materials and technology to enhance his own body to go faster and to use blood dopping to repaire his body to go faster.

We have to admit that we have created a double standard, and an impossible system. Athletes want to compete and win and will do everything to be the best they can. They sacrifice their time, money, health, personal relationships and childhood for the sake of winning. What is it to them to add a little drugs to the mix?

This is not an American or an Armstrong issue. This is a global problem. Germans did it, Soviets did it, Cubans did it, American and Chinese did it, and heck even the third world countries did it.

All athletes from all countries do it. Armstrong did it bigger, better, badder and more boldly than everyone else for longer than anyone else. Heck I bet even the US cycling federation and the tour de france knew he is doing it. No one wanted to stop the unstoppable machine. Armstrong was king of the world. US cycling federation saw its luck rise and its profile increase, and the tour de france was blinded by the fact that a once European sport has become a global money machine. His teammates were all better off, and the charitable work was a good spin to shut up any and all critics. Now Mr. Armstrong is no longer the king, and the house of cards, is starting to crumble.

What we need is a serious consideration. Can we really ban and enforce a ban on drugs in cycling? If not, then accept it and let them take it. Publish list of substances, and establish means of administration and control.

If this was any other vise, the economist would propose legalize and tax to control. Why not dopping in sports?

I know some are going to say impossible to administer and control, but then again its already an impossible system, so who is to say it won't be better if we legalize, and attempt to control? Heck I can see it that we impose a handicap based on the results of the last round of drug tests. And Mr. Armstrong took a 25 minute handicap for dopping and blood transfusions last night but still managed to make back 23 minutes to finnish 2 minutes behind the leader as the runner up of tour de france. Now is that so bad?

We all hate Armstrong because he was a jerk, a liar, a bully and an arse. If he was a nice person, what then?

An interesting take on things fortunately I do not ever see that becoming the case. Sport will become a monopoly to the team with the most money that can invest in the best performance enhancing drugs. It will no longer be based on natural talent which is the essence of sport.

One thing for sure is that everyone did know this was happening but the money coming in was too good to resist... greed corrupts everyone eventually.

Probably he is saving that for the next round of interviews with Pierce of CNN, and the ladies of the View. After all whats a good come back without a little redemption and god thrown in for good boot?

Armstrong exemplifies US societal values of individualism, aggressiveness, go for broke/winning at all costs.......In fact the image he projects is one of a de-humanized robot full of adrenalin. I would say it is not only Armstrong that needs to reflect but the society which produced him and continues to produce such people daily. Call it what you may, he is not a shining example of American exceptionalism but a symptom of moral decay typical of a society where winning (and money)is all that matters.

Thanks! Lance Armstrong cheating has been my reference for the last 10 years in terms of what I present as "the winner syndrome".
New to the US ? Don't worry, once you're aware of this cultural aspect, this is an annoyance easy to deal with : there are mostly mediocre cheats, and very few geniuses. And a vast majority of straight people to team up with.
Armstrong was probably a master cheater, but defending his lies led him into a despicable behaviour for more than a decade. The whole world knew but the US ; here he remained a champion thanks to nationalism.

The Economist opines:
"Mr Armstrong also admitted that he was an “arrogant prick” and a “bully”. He might have added victim to that. Doping was rife, everyone was doing it and it was impossible to win without help."
.
Am I reading this right, is The Economist seriously claiming that Armstrong is a "victim" of doping? This is unbelievable, he was not a victim, he was the ringleader.
.
He lied even more during that "interview". He lied about never testing positive, he claimed not to remember suing Emily O'Reilly, and he claims he has been clean since 2005. This last claim, I am sure has more to do with his current legal troubles that with telling the truth.
.
Armstrong destroyed lives. He does not need sympathy, he needs to be in prison.

I used to find him a bit scary, but now that he's come clean, I like him a lot more. It must be a difficult thing to do, and I think he deserves praise for doing it. I hope things turn out well for him, his family, and the people most affected by the whole thing.

Yes, he does deserve to remain free as a bird, and keep many millions (every analyst agrees, even after a raft of suits, he'll still be left smelling like roses).

Perfectly fair outcome, considering the massive fraud he perpetrated, and the damage he caused to so many others.

Perhaps we should just setup interviews with every inmate across America - each one that admits to their crime will be granted their freedom, a couple million dollars, and a nationally broadcast interview with Oprah.

The use of performance-enhancing drugs prevails mostly due to the commercialisation of sports (in conjunction with a silly national pride in some cases, see the Olympic medal count).
The media keep buzzing about who's the fastest man, the quickest rider, the longest long jumper, the best footballer, who leads the Tour de France and so on and so forth. And the mob loves it.
This, in turn, leads to enormous sums being spent, for which people like Armstrong fight for their share. As the competition is fierce, the sportsmen and sportswomen do anything to win to enjoy the glory and paycheques. "Shockingly", it involves the consumption of illegal drugs.
The remedy for the aforementioned ills, is to scale down the money being spent on professional sports. Cut down the prizes, stop reporting on sports and voilà, no-stories like this will plummet dramatically.
As it's not going to happen any time soon, enjoy bashing the current bogeyman instead of fixing a broken system.

The Emperor’s New Clothes.
Lance Armstrong, Neil Armstrong, Herbert W Armstrong, Bernie Madoff, Golda Meir, Adolf Hitler, Julius Ceasar, Mother Theresa, Osama bin Laden, Bill and Hillary, Gaddafi, Margaret Thatcher, Pope Benedict, Aung San Suu Kyi, Tony Blair, Benazir Bhutto, Jesus of Nazareth …
What do all these people have in common? Each, in their own time, was more or less helplessly caught up in and swept along by their unique “place in history”. Some have sought solace in a funk of faux, ‘publicity-shy’ humility. For others, the intoxication of their own hubris suggests a loss of contact with reality, an overestimation of their capabilities, especially from a position of power. In ancient Greece, hubris had a strong, testosterone-driven, sexual connotation, more commonly associated with assault and battery, rape and improper consensual sexual activity, as well as theft of public or sacred property.
Aristotle defined hubris as shaming the victim, not because of anything that has happened or might happen to you, but for your own gratification. Hubris is not revenge, the requital of past injuries. Hubristic pleasure is derived from ill-treating others, to make one’s own superiority seem greater. This relies on the early Greek concepts of honour and shame. Honour meant the exaltation of the hero and shaming the one overcome by the hubris. A zero-sum game.
"Memento mori", a Latin phrase, meaning, 'remember your mortality', remember you will die. The phrase is said to have originated in ancient Rome. As a victorious general was paraded through the streets, his slave, standing behind him, was required to remind his master that, triumphant today, tomorrow he could be brought down. According to Tertullian in his Apologeticus, the terrified servant intoned, "Respice post te! Look behind you! Hominem te esse memento! You’re only a man remember! Memento mori! Remember you will die!"
The Emperor’s New Clothes, by Hans Christian Andersen, employs, like every parable, what Bible students know as the Pesher method [Hebrew for "interpretation" or "solution", as relating to the Dead Sea Scrolls]. This assumes the text is written on two levels, the surface for ordinary readers with limited knowledge, and the concealed one for the cognoscenti. This ‘children’s story’ is also intended to be read on two levels. Perhaps three. Pretext, the conceit, the innocent words. Context, meaning as juxtaposed by association. And sub-text, the hidden agenda. On its face, this story is about a king’s vanity. Deeper, it’s about ‘group think’, mass hysteria, a form of collective neurosis, like Murdoch’s ‘wilful blindness’. In the story, it was an innocent child, who dared to utter the unthinkable. Those with power and influence, and most to lose, could not afford to admit what they patently knew to be true, fearing instant dismissal.
To what extent was this Sir Lance-a-lot to the manners born for the joust? The quintessential alpha male, was he raised to believe, “you can do anything, if you try” and, “failure is not an option”? What happens when very important people, especially those you most care about, begin believing in you, with such a passion and fervour, that it would destroy everything you hold dear to disabuse them of the lie? What if the myth takes on an indomitable life of its own? Then what? Quit while you’re ahead? Die in battle, rather than face defeat? Play hard until you expire in a die-hard blaze of climactic ecstasy? When at first you do succeed, do better next time?
The jury is still out on the effects of testosterone. How and to what extent is male life expectancy implicated? Maybe it’s true, what they say. “Winning is not the most important thing. It’s the only thing.” Have mammalian males evolved for the sole purpose of expending all the testosterone-driven zeal on “sowing wild oats” and so to die, content in the knowledge that at least their “selfish genes” stand a sporting chance of surviving, every race?
How is the much-publicised (for a fee) business of "giving back to the community", from the ill-gotten proceeds of one’s crime, to be understood? To what extent is high-profile “altruism” due to nothing more mysterious than that familiar sense of satisfaction, derived from helping little old ladies across the street, or tipping one’s dimes and quarters into the beggar’s bowl?
How many of us have preferred to look down at the floor, silently transfixed by this excruciating, theatrically staged pillorying … remembering. Who remembers having accepted, perhaps decades ago at school, a cheap, fiercely coveted ribbon, knowing full well that others knew it was undeserved? "He, who is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone."

It's all just spin and BS - all professional sportsmen at the top 'enhance performance', with resources not available to amateurs. Baseball - duh! Wrestling, tennis, rugy, football, gridiron, you name - they do it.

The sophistry and fine lines of professional sporting associations are an artifice of self interested mock ignorance - the public should let go of its hero worship, grow a brain and accept professional sport is purely entertainment and fiction. Get a real job, Mr Armstrong - you may need it.

The 'fun' of amateur sport participation, is more beneficial when casually improving physical ability and providing entertainment. A walk in a park or on the beach, requires no special outfits or monthly fees; letting off steam and having a laugh with mates will make a better whole person, than 6-hours daily of joint damaging exercise, doping and all the rest of rubbish peddled by the 'fitness industry'.